…the fact that a single SNP plays such a large role in governing this specific aspect of human behaviour is quite a novel finding.

My comment: A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in one of the duplicated genes (the ABCC11 allele) links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry in species from microbes to humans. The underlying basis for cause and effect was included in our section on RNA-mediated molecular epigenetics in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior

The ecological validity of the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in our review, which the late Robert T. Francoeur helped me to place into the context of our 1995 book representation, has not been challenged. We updated the book in 2002.

Excerpt: Of all areas of human olfactory function, the role of smell in reproductive behavior has consistently attracted the most popular attention (e.g., Hassett 1978; Kohl and Francoeur 1995).

Every claim in The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality has since been placed into the context of what is currently known about how chemical ecology drives ecological adaptation in the context of: (1) ecological niche construction, (2) social niche construction, (3) neurogenic niche construction, and (4) socio-cognitive niche construction.

This model exemplifies the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal conditioning, which alters genetically predisposed, nutrient-dependent, hormone-driven mammalian behavior and choices for pheromones that control reproduction…

Excerpt 2)

These two reports (Grossman et al., 2013; Kamberov et al., 2013) tell a new short story of adaptive evolution. The story begins with what was probably a nutrient-dependent variant allele that arose in central China approximately 30,000 years ago. The effect of the allele is adaptive and it is manifested in the context of an effect on sweat, skin, hair, and teeth. In other mammals, like the mouse, the effect on sweat, skin, hair, and teeth is due to an epigenetic effect of nutrients on hormones responsible for the tweaking of immense gene networks that metabolize nutrients to pheromones.

Grossman et al (2013) and Kamberov et al., (2013) linked a single SNP to a single amino acid substitution and changes in morphological phenotypes in species from mice to humans.

The traits — thicker hair shafts, more sweat glands, characteristically identified teeth and smaller breasts — are the result of a gene mutation that occurred about 35,000 years ago, the researchers have concluded.

My comment: However, Holger Heyn placed what others called a “mutation” into the context of a model that “…is further extendable to virtually all traceable molecular traits.” Obviously, mutations are not included in any model that extends across species to traceable molecular traits. Examining molecular traits leads to links from ecological variation to ecological adaptation without the pseudoscientific claims about mutations and evolution.

The association of DNA methylation and genetic sequence displays an exemplary application, which is further extendable to virtually all traceable cellular features, including proteomics or metabolomics, among many others. It will be the knowledge of these complex relationships that will drive future efforts to resolve the conundrum of human variation in physiological and pathological contexts.

The SNP can be linked from nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation to RNA-mediated gene duplication. Nutrient-dependent gene duplication links the genetic variant to fixation of an RNA-mediated amino acid substitution in the context of the physiology of reproduction in all living genera.

The fixation of nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions determines cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all living genera via the physiology of reproduction. The physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction enables fixation of the amino acid substitutions that stabilize the organized genomes of all living genera.

See my comment on A symbiotic liaison between the genetic and epigenetic code: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model “Conclusion: An environmental drive evolved from that of nutrient ingestion in unicellular organisms to that of pheromone-controlled socialization in insects. In mammals, food odors and pheromones cause changes in hormones such as LH, which has developmental affects on pheromone-controlled sexual behavior in nutrient-dependent reproductively fit individuals across species of vertebrates.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24693353

They did not include all the details that support their claims, probably because the journal article was not targeted to an audience of physicists or chemists. However, the substitution of the only achiral amino acid in the GnRH decapeptide has been linked from olfaction to reproduction in this non-technical representation of biologically-based cause and effect.

… there is no fundamental rewriting of Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory of evolutionary biology involved in this concept. Like single nucleotide mutations, acquisition of new symbionts births raw genetic variation that evolution can operate on.

My question: Were you fooled by this ridiculous misrepresentation of Darwin’s and Wallace’s works? Please read that claim again.

My comment: Darwin never claimed mutations led to genetic variation that evolution could operate on. Darwin knew nothing about genes and neither did Wallace. Darwin claimed that “conditions of life” must be considered before natural selection. The misrepresentation in Light of the Microbiomeis merely another attempt to convince the biologically uniformed pseudoscientists of the world that they can continue to cling to their ridiculous neo-Darwinian theories.

In 2006, Begun found some of the first evidence that genes could indeed pop into existence from noncoding DNA.

The idea that evidence could consist of something linked to genes that “pop into existence” is common among neo-Darwinian theorists. They don’t know where the first genes came from, which means they can claim that old genes and new genes could “pop into existence” and lead to the evolution of new species. Indeed, outside the context of biophysically contrained protein folding chemistry, unsupported claims of different type have proliferated.

Excerpt: Each variant adapted to suit a different ecological niche. But Blair Hedges, a biologist at Temple University in Philadelphia, has proposed a provocative alternative: Adaptation had little to do with it. It was simply a matter of chance and time.

My comment: These articles lack continuity / scientific integrity. Ecological variation is linked to ecological adaptations. Ecological adaptation is prevented by viruses and facilitated by the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction. That is what serious scientists have shown and supported with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.

It doesn’t matter what biologically uniformed science idiots claim. Experimental evidence supports what serious scientists know. The light-induced de novo creation of nucleic acids is linked to RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions. RNA-mediated events differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all living genera. Nutrient uptake links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes via metabolic networks and genetic networks.

The networks are perturbed by the accumulation of viruses because viral microRNAs perturb protein folding. Only via nutrient-dependent DNA repair can the stability of organized genomes be established. In species from microbes to man experimental evidence links SNPs to energy-dependent DNA repair from nutrient-dependent base pair changes to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction via RNA-mediated events that link morphology and behavior.

James Vaughn Kohl was the first to accurately conceptualize human pheromones, and began presenting his findings to the scientific community in 1992. He continues to present to, and publish for, diverse scientific and lay audiences, while constantly monitoring the scientific presses for new information that is relevant to the development of his initial and ongoing conceptualization of human pheromones.
Recently, Kohl integrated scientific evidence that pinpoints the evolved neurophysiological mechanism that links olfactory/pheromonal input to genes in hormone-secreting cells of tissue in a specific area of the brain that is primarily involved in the sensory integration of olfactory and visual input, and in the development of human sexual preferences. His award-winning 2007 article/book chapter on multisensory integration: The Mind’s Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences followed an award winning 2001 publication: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology, which was coauthored by disinguished researchers from Vienna. Rarely do researchers win awards in multiple disciplines, but Kohl’s 2001 award was for neuroscience, and his 2007 “Reiss Theory” award was for social science.
Kohl has worked as a medical laboratory scientist since 1974, and he has devoted more than twenty-five years to researching the relationship between the sense of smell and the development of human sexual preferences. Unlike many researchers who work with non-human subjects, medical laboratory scientists use the latest technology from many scientific disciplines to perform a variety of specialized diagnostic medical testing on people.
James V. Kohl is certified with:
* American Society for Clinical Pathology
* American Medical Technologists
James V. Kohl is a member of:
* Society for Neuroscience
* Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology
* Association for Chemoreception Sciences
* Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
* International Society for Human Ethology
* American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
* Mensa, the international high IQ society

About James V. Kohl

James V. Kohl was the first to accurately conceptualize human pheromones, and began presenting his findings to the scientific community in 1992. He continues to present to, and publish for, diverse scientific and lay audiences, while constantly monitoring the scientific presses for new information that is relevant to the development of his initial and ongoing conceptualization of human pheromones.